h. :■• i ' 



E438 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



00001734^08 



ST- ^ ** • 




^J-w r»^ • • • f ^S. 

<*i»v 4.'' . \Li>w* ^ 



<7V.« A <, -F.T* .0* ^VJ?P A A 




















*° V*' 






VAO T 




.♦^ 






+*o< 







°o 



•bv 1 



^ 




















vv 

<**% 



r c *.^sit # % AiSafer\ o°*.^>>o /\t^ 










DESIGNS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, OF R. ISLAND. 



Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 27, 1860. 



The House being in Committee of the 
Whole, and having under consideration 
the bill to provide for the payment of out- 
standing Treasury notes, to authorize a 
loan, to regulate and fix the duties on im- 
ports, and for other purposes — 

Mr. ROBINSON said: 

Mr. Chairman : Much has been said, in 
the course of the debates in this House, of 
the purposes and designs of the Republi- 
can party. Bold and harsh accusations 
have been made against it. It has been 
specially charged with having violated, 
and designing to violate, the Constitution 
of the United States; and of intending to 
use the administrative powers of the Gen- 
eral Government, if it should obtain it, 
to break down the rights of the Southern 
States, and eradicate some of their social 
and political institutions. The party is 
charged with ignoring, upon the matter of 
slavery, the true spirit and construction of 
the Constitution. It is alleged that its 
purposes and designs are treasonable, and 
that it aids and abets the invasion of the 
States. These charges are made with a 
seriousness and persistency that forbids 
us to distrust the sincerity of many, at 
least, of our Southern friends who make 
them. Their reiteration by the presses 
and politicians of the North, however, are 
perfectly understood to b-" for political 
effect alone, upon men who are supposed 
to be extremely sensitive and timid, and 
to deter them from a free expression of 
their opinions. Fortunately, however, for 



the party charged with these grave politi- 
cal offences, we are debating this matter 
before an intelligent and patriotic people. 
The schoolmaster and the press, the strong 
types of our modern civilization, are 
abroad, and have been for years; and 
the people who have received their in- 
structions will never believe that they 
have not improved their pupils, and soft- 
ened and refined the spirit of that barbar- 
ous age, when learning was cramped and 
confined ; when men of power could not 
read, and made their marks, not with the 
pen, but with the pommel of their swords. 

We violate the Constitution! How? 
Because we contend that "freedom is na- 
tional, and slavery sectional;" that the 
first is guarded and protected by the Con- 
stitution, which announces in its pream- 
ble its object to be " to form a more per- 
fect Union, establish justice, insure do- 
mestic tranquillity, provide for the com- 
mon defence, promote the general wel- 
fare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
ourselves and our posterity?" 

All the provisions of that Constitution 
were designed to carry out and perpetuate 
the formula of glorious purposes set forth 
in its preamble. It was framed for no 
other Government than a Gorernment of 
freedom. Had, however, any one unfa- 
miliar with the designs of that instrument 
listened to the arguments from the Demo- 
cratic side of the House, they must have 
thought that the iramers of the Constitu- 
tion intended to protect, not freedom, 



but slavery ; to promote, not the general 
welfare, but to pile up, if possible, the 
means to keep the country in a state of 
constant disturbance. 

Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as remark- 
ably singular, if it were the design of the 
Constitution to promote and extend sla- 
very, that the word should not have oc- 
curred in the instrument from its begin- 
ning to its end. It is equally strange 
that some of the soundest as well as most 
brilliant statesmen of the Revolution 
should have protested against the inser- 
tion of the word, that the instrument 
forming the basis of a glorious Confeder- 
acy of free States should nowhere, in any 
of its provisions, perpetuate the evidence 
that there existed, in the land where that 
fierce struggle for freedom was waged, so 
glaring a solecism as that institution pre- 
sents — so palpable a contradiction of the 
political doctrines and rights set forth in 
the Declaration of Independence. 

If it had been the purpose of the Con- 
stitution to extend slavery; if the institu- 
tion itself were of so overwhelming im- 
portance that it could form the only nu- 
cleus about which the people of the orig- 
inal States could gather, is it not surpri- 
sing, is it not a glaring impeachment of 
the intelligence as well as the patriotism 
and honesty of its framers, that they left 
this all-important, this now only disturb- 
ing, element in our Government, almost 
wholly and entirely to implication; that 
its only recognition by them was not as 
existing by the force of the Constitution, 
but exclusively by virtue of State laws? 

There was a time when our Southern 
friends strenuously contended for the doc- 
trine of strict construction. When we 
urged upon them the necessity of protec- 
tion to domestic industry, and the policy 
of a system of internal improvements, they 
turned to us with an air of triumph, and 
asked us to point them to the authority 
expressly given in the Constitution to 
Congress to legislate upon these matters 
as we desire. Can they blame us, who 
earnestly believe that this policy does con- 
tribute to the general welfare — does form 
among the States a more perfect union 
rendering it permanent and strong, pro- 
moting intercourse among them, estab- 
lishing the means of a common defence, 
furnishing employment for a cheerful, 
willing industry, as well as compensation 



for its toil — can they blame us, when thev 
claim that the right to extend slavery is 
right under the Constitution — nay, supe 
rior to it, and walks with an elephant tread 
over all other purposes and designs of the 
Constitution — that we turn upon them 
with their favorite doctrine of strict con- 
struction, and ask them to point us to any 
recognition of such a purpose or design 
in any of the provisions of the Constitu- 
tion ? 

VVe think the interrogatory a proper one, 
and should be answered by some more 
potent reply than denunciation. The Con- 
stitution iiself, in that article which forms 
the basis of the fugitive slave law, ex- 
pressly disclaims the position contended 
for by our political opponents. That sec- 
tion provides that — 

" No person held to labor or service in 
' one Slate, [under what ? Under the Con- 
' stitution of the United States? No.] 
' under the laws thereof, escaping into an- 
' other, shall, in consequence of any law 
' or regulation therein, be discharged fron 
' such service or labor, but shall be deliv 
' ered up, on claim of the party to whom. 
' such service or labor shall be due.'V 

This section, if it applies to fugiuve 
slaves, recognises the seivitude as existing 
purely and simply by the laws of the State, 
and therefore wholly local and sectional 
in its character. If the framers of the Con- 
stitution had entertained the idea that the 
institution of slavery was a feature of the 
Government, whose fundamental laws they 
were framing, would they have left it with 
no other support to the authority of the 
master over the person of his slave ? Would 
they have made no provision for those 
cases where the exigencies of business or 
the allurements of pleasure would induce 
the master to take his chattel into a State 
where the local law did not or might not 
recognise the right of one man to own the 
person of another? They were strangely 
negligent of the high and responsible duties 
imposed upon them, if they designed to 
give to slavery an existence under the pro- 
visions of the Constitution. They recog- 
nised it simply as a State institution. The 
person is held to service, not under the 
Constitution, but under the laws of the 
Slate from which he escapes. When the 
master takes him beyond the limits of that 
local law that binds him to servitude, then, 
under the Constitution of the United 



Sxchange 
West. Res. Hlrt. Sec 



tttes, and in absence of local law, his 
$nhood can assert its right, and the 
;.ve stands " disenthralled," by the 
■emancipating genius" of the Constitu- 
tion. 

But it is not only from this provision of 
the Constitution that we think we prove 
conclusively that the institution was recog- 
nised simply as an institution of a State, 
existing by force of its own local law, but 
by the cotemporaneous construction given 
to that instrument by the framers of it. 
That ordinance, which forever debarred 
the entrance of slavery into the glorious 
Northwest Territory, where giant States 
are now rejoicing in freedom, and busily 
engaged in a noble competition in agri- 
culture, science, and art — in all that digni- 
fies and adorns our nature, and makes 
us reverence the institutions of freedom — 
is a lively commentary upon the text and 
principles of that Constitution they framed 
a'nd so grandly set in operation. 
• Its results there are the embodiment of 
Stt the purposes its sublime preamble con- 
suls ; not mere '* glittering generalities," 
K r# the natural as well as substantial de- 
pments of the political genius of the 
Government. 

Did our revolutionary statesmen in that 
ordinance "exorcise the Constitution of 
its spirit?" or did they not display its vi- 
tality and power? And now, has that 
Constitution, having attained the years al- 
lotted to man, become weakened and de- 
cayed ? Has it lost its manly proportions, 
its vigorous spirit and power, and become 
dwarled and decrepit? If it has, its decay 
results, not from any inherent weakness 
or defect in its original formation, but be- 
cause we have experimented upon it — 
have administered to it political medicines 
which eat out its original fibres, and de- 
stroy its early manliness. Is it necessary 
to repeat, apart from this commentary of 
our political fathers, which this ordinance 
presents, the opinions they entertained of 
that institution — that modern idol which 
all candidates for political honor are com- 
manded to worship, or be shut out from 
political promotion ? Those opinions are 
a portion of our political history, and it is 
not in the power of party Conventions to 
falsify or obliterate them. They will in 
future years, as they do now, inspire with 
untiring zeal the advocates of a noble and 
exalting freedom. This institution was re- 



garded, not as an element of power, but of 
weakness, trammelling our political prog- 
ress, and retarding the development of 
the national power. Nor were these opin- 
ions confined to the age in which our fa- 
thers lived. Their descendants adopted 
their views upon this grave matter. A 
little more than a quarter of a century ago, 
the same opinions were as freely expressed 
in the Slate that now prides itself as the 
home of Washington and JefTerson. 

A new light, however, has broken in 
upon us. A new analysis of the Consti- 
tution has been made by the political ex- 
perts of the day; and, to the surprise of 
all, it is announced that, instead of free- 
dom, slavery is its inspiring genius, and 
constitutes its strength and preserving 
power. The stars of our flag no longer 
shine over the pathway of liberty, but 
twinkle dimly and darkly over the mists 
of human servitude. We, who follow the 
statesmen of the Revolution, the great 
apostles of human freedom; we, who 
struggle in our national legislation to per- 
petuate the spirit of the oidinance of 1787, 
the first-born of the Constitution, are stig- 
matized as disorganizers and sectional- 
ists. If the struggle of -principle against 
power — a contest for a strict construction 
of the Constitution, where human freedom 
is involved — against an absolute perver- 
sion of its provisions for the purpose of 
extending human servitude, makes us dis- 
organizers and sectionalists, we must bear 
the charge. An appeal to history will 
fasten these epithets upon those who so 
freely apply them to us. 

Why, Mr. Chairman, who threaten to 
disorganize the Government? Who look 
to a disruption of the Union for relief for 
any political grievances they suffer, or im- 
agine they suffer? Who would bring upon 
the American people the greatest of all 
political calamities, in the vain hope of re- 
dressing some imaginary political injury? 
Have the Republican party made any such 
threat? In the wild and stormy debates 
which preceded the organization of this 
House, did that party proclaim on this 
floor their success in the coming Presi- 
dential contest the condition upon which 
they would stay in the Union ? Did they 
appeal to the firm attachment ofthe Ameri- 
can people to the Union, and attempt to 
alarm their fears for its safety, for the pur- 
pose of frightening them into casting their 



G 



years, so frequently and earnestly de- 
clare — a social and political blessing, the 
practical development of a political phi- 
lanthropy regarding and working out the 
best good and highest interest of both the 
white and black raee, and solving the po- 
litical problem of combining the welfare 
of both in one social system, we are will- 
ing and anxious that all the good educed 
from it shall be enjoyed and confined to 
the States where the system now exists. 
We ask not to be the recipients of the 
blessing it promotes, and assure these 
States that no act or effort of the Repub- 
lican parly will disturb them in the enjoy- 
ment of it. 

We do, however, claim the right to de- 
termine, under the Constitution, whether 
the system shall be extended into Terri- 
tories where no law exists to establish it; 
or, in other words, we protest in the name 
of the hardy laborers of the country against 
being compelled to receive its dubious 
good. It is now said, the true principle 
is, that the negro, a slave in the States, 
upon his introduction into the Territories 
continues a slave ; that the Constitution, 
propria vigore, extends over him and con- 
tinues his servitude — a proposition at war 
with the earliest legislation adopted by the 
fathers of the Constitution, and suggestive 
of some very significant queries. The 
position assumes the absence both of Ter- 
ritorial and Congressional legislation. It 
will not be contended that the Constitu- 
tion contains in itself any provision for 
the protection of slavery in the Territories. 
It pronounces no penalties against any 
infraction of this right of property in man. 
How, then, is this claim of property to 
be protected in the absence of any legis- 
lation ? It is a claim not recognised by 
the common law. If it has any founda- 
tion whatever, it must be by virtue of 
some local law. Will the slaveholder in 
the Territory look to the law of the State 
from which he emigrated for the means 
to control and regulate his claim to this 
anomalous property? Will the Constitu- 
tion transfer into the Territories as many 
slave codes as there are slave States from 
which owners of slaves may emigrate, and 
vindicate and protect the rights founded 
upon these various codes ? 

In one State, the slave code carefully 
prohibits emancipation, while it may be 
permitted in another. Will the person 



emigrating from the first be prohibited 
from giving freedom to the slave, while 
the slaveholder from the second will be at 
liberty to emancipate ? Will the relation 
of master and slave, their rights, duties, 
and responsibilities, be affected as the 
legislation of the State may vary from 
which they emigrated? 

Again : it is now deemed in many of 
the slave States a necessary safeguard of 
their institution to expel the free negro, 
or to reduce him to slavery. Will the 
Constitution of the United States of itself 
carry this protective legislation into the 
Territories as a general law, controlling 
all parties ; or will the emigrant from a 
slave State, whose local law expels the 
free negro, or reduces him to slavery in 
case of disobedience to the law, have 
power to put in force this local law, to 
drive out the free negro, or sell him into 
servitude, while the emigrant from a State 
having no such law will possess no such 
power ? 

All this political and legal chaos ap- 
pears to be the legitimate result of the 
theory that the Constitution of the United 
States carries slavery into the Territories. 
If it carries it there, it should protect it ; 
and to protect it without Congressional 
legislation, creates this confusion. 

We are told that, if it had not been for 
the provision of the Constitution for the 
rendition of fugitive slaves, it never would 
have been adopted. If this be true, can 
we believe that the framers of the Consti- 
tution, who certainly understood its pro- 
visions, who so sedulously excluded the 
words "slave" and "slavery" from it, 
and who embraced the first opportunity 
to exclude slavery from a large portion of 
the common territory, would have adopted 
it, if they had believed it susceptible of 
the construction which is now attempted 
to be put upon it ? 

Again, our forefathers discussed the sub- 
ject of slavery with as much freedom as 
any other upon which they were called to 
act. It was to them not a forbidden topic. 
If the Constitution carries slavery into the 
Territories, will the same freedom of dis- 
cussion be permitted there? or will the 
immigration of the slaveholder, with his 
chattels, of itself restrain this freedom of 
debate? Will a person, from a free or 
slave State, who may have some doubt of 
the policy of slavery, or who, leaving the 



mere question of policy, takes a higher I 
stand, and denies its rightfulness, be de- 
barred the freedom of speech or discus- | 
sion, be prevented from expressing freely [ 
and fully his opinions? If a newspaper is 
established, will that be subject to censor- 
ship, and all articles it may contain, freely 
examining the social and political influ- 
ences of the institution, be deemed incen- 
diary, while the editor will be consigned 
to the prison, or handed over to the " un- 
friendly legislation " of a mob ? We know 
that great latitude of discussion, in some 
of the slave States, is not allowed to those 
who debate this subject, and express opin- 
ions hostile to the expediency or justice 
of slavery. To those whose social and 
political institutions are of so strong a 
texture that they will bear the closest ex- 
amination and fullest range of debate, 
these queries are important. Accustomed 
to think freely, and to express aloud their 
thoughts upon all matters in which they 
feel an interest ; to examine with scrutiny 
thf.'ir bearing upon their social and politi- 
cal prosperity ; in fact, to discuss all sub- 4 



jects they choose to discuss with the full- 
est freedom, and to give to their opinions 
the freest expression, the citizens of the 
free States doubt the propriety of extend- 
ing an institution which, in this age of 
progress, requires to bespoken of tender- 
ly and carefully, even where it has all the 
prejudices of birth, the strength of habit, 
and force of education, to sustain it. 

Mr. Chairman, we have lately paused in 
our legislative duties to inaugurate the 
statue of Washington. His life was again 
passed in review before us, and the hearts 
of Americans beat joyfully as they recurred 
to his early toils and patriotic struggles. 
We challenge the world to produce his 
parallel. His triumphs in the field, and 
his success in the Cabinet ; his devotion 
to the cause of freedom, wherever called 
by duty to act, are to us a subject of ex- 
ultation and delight. The Republican 
party, while ihey pay homage to his prin- 
ciples, will prove the sincerity of their re- 
spect, by attempting to bring back the 
administration of the Government to the 
policy he so nobly sustained while living. 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1860. 



REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. 



HON. PRESTON KING, N. Y., Chairman. 
" J. W. GRIMES, IOWA. 
" L. F. S. FOSTER, CONN. 

On the part of the Senate. 
" E. B. WASIIBURNE, ILLINOIS. 



HON. JOHN COVODE, PENN., Treasurer. 
" E. G. SPAULDING, N. Y. 
" J. B. ALLEY, MASS. 
" DAVIQ KILGORB, INDIANA. 
" J. L. N. STRATTON, N. J. 

On the part of the House of Reps. 

m During the Presidential Campaign, Speeches and Documents will be supplied at the follow- 
ing reduced prices : 

Eight pages, per hundred $0 50 

Sixteen M " 100 

Twenty-four u /-« 

Address either of the above Committee. 

GEORGE HARRINGTON, Secretary. 



5 



'■ ; 






^* : 



j .>% 



.#*%_ 









k v • • • _ «*i <*> 










•7E*V 



**\ 











A>*^ 



^ 










































• •• 








^^ 











& »ftk •« 5* ,*y -^ VK <£ 









V^ B 







.v.g^ v^v <*•-—*>* v^V 



**** 














V *.T*> <? 







"©. **?M # * *P 



^•afcA ^-^\> o°.-;Sfc* /•]# 



*0« 



by 






"W 

^ 



(6 »Ci 









■ AiiafeA o^-jSaJi.^ AsiatS. <? -^i 







v 





